Catholicism Poll II: Should the Catholic Church allow women to be Priests?

[bwv 1080]

That's the hope!   0:) 

Islam needs a Council of Trent or a Martin Luther of some sort.

Islam needs an Enlightenment, not a Reformation.  Luther was as much of a fanatic as any Catholic prelate of the time

[Xenophanes]

i find women, as i earlier posted, serving in various ministries during the nt times.  i can't see that they functioned in a priestly manner.  they seem to be more teachers and deaconesses.
not being catholic, i must now bow out of the discussion.

dj

Well, if you can tell us just what deacons and deaconesses in the NT did as distinct from priests with any certainty, that would be helpful.  The scholars seem in doubt about this.

That is not a peculiarly Catholic issue, BTW, so you it is quite appropriate that you contribute, if you wish.

[Xenophanes]

Perhaps you should actually read your catechism then.

So you mean that we can't investigate whether is an adequate basis for things said in the Catechism?  Do the references supplied actually support what is said, for example? Or, are the references supplied "cherry picking," a phrase you used earlier? Or, is the argumentation valid?

How little you know Catholics!  You can find all sorts of reactions in a huge institution such as the Catholic Church, which subsists in many different locales, cultures, and situations.  You seem to rely on a ultra-conservative understanding of the Church.

[Xenophanes]

That's the hope!   0:) 

Islam needs a Council of Trent or a Martin Luther of some sort.

Brian: The only "infallible" ex cathedra statement from a pope has come in 1950 concerning the Virgin Mary.  That is what is wrong with the previous explanation.

The Church could allow a married clergy, and it could allow female ordination.  Most probably it will not, especially the latter, because of the tradition: but it has nothing to do with suddenly changing any infallible proclamation.

See my earlier link to possible female priests and even bishops in the early Church.

Thanks.  I have been trying to tell bwv 1080 that he simply doesn't have the breadth of experience and knowledge to pontificate on the Church, though of course he can contribute intelligently to the discussions.

[Lilas Pastia]

How little you know Catholics!  You can find all sorts of reactions in a huge institution such as the Catholic Church, which subsists in many different locales, cultures, and situations.  You seem to rely on a ultra-conservative understanding of the Church.

Using the most extreme examples has always been a favourite tactic of catholic bashers. That the Church has been and continues to question and allow debate within its ranks is usually forgotten. The same holds true (to a greater degree) of mainstream protestant churches. But it is my experience that evangelical currents of any hue are the strictest and most intransigent on both doctrinal and "church life" issues.

[Cato]

Islam needs an Enlightenment, not a Reformation.  Luther was as much of a fanatic as any Catholic prelate of the time

The Reformation is part of the Renaissance: an Enlightenment phase would be nice for Islam as well!

Agreed that Luther had his blind spots!   

[bwv 1080]

So you mean that we can't investigate whether is an adequate basis for things said in the Catechism?  Do the references supplied actually support what is said, for example? Or, are the references supplied "cherry picking," a phrase you used earlier? Or, is the argumentation valid?

How little you know Catholics!  You can find all sorts of reactions in a huge institution such as the Catholic Church, which subsists in many different locales, cultures, and situations.  You seem to rely on a ultra-conservative understanding of the Church.

You can investigate all you want, but according to its own doctrine, the Church cannot error on proclaimations of faith and morals.  It is more than whether a particular Papal statement was ex Cathedra.  The entire Church for its recorded history has held that priests have to be men.  It is an infallible matter of doctrine that a Woman cannot validly consecrate the host at Mass.  It cannot, by definition, error on this matter.  What individual Catholics believe or want to believe is irrelevant.  The bishops know that the conservative members of the Church are more important anyway.  They are the ones who give more money, encourage their kids to take religious vocations, go to Mass every Sunday etc.  There is no reason, other than habit for liberal Catholics to remain in the Church and as the generation of liberals that grew up pre-Vatican II dies off  their children will either become conservative or drift away from the Church.  There is no way the heirarchy is going to alienate its core membership to appease the sensitivities of a marginal group.  If B16 were to begin ordaining Women tomorrow what do you think the reaction would be?  The Church would fall apart - the conservatives would revolt - the SSPX schism would be nothing compared to what would happen over Women's ordination.  All the Bishops have to do is look what happened to the Anglican Church (where I grew up) when it started ordaining women in the late 70s.

[Lilas Pastia]

This is a fascinating description of mainstream protestant and evangelical churches in America. Well done!

[Brian]

Brian: The only "infallible" ex cathedra statement from a pope has come in 1950 concerning the Virgin Mary.  That is what is wrong with the previous explanation.

The Church could allow a married clergy, and it could allow female ordination.  Most probably it will not, especially the latter, because of the tradition: but it has nothing to do with suddenly changing any infallible proclamation.

See my earlier link to possible female priests and even bishops in the early Church.

Thanks 

[bwv 1080]

The only "infallible" ex cathedra statement from a pope has come in 1950 concerning the Virgin Mary.  That is what is wrong with the previous explanation.

The Church could allow a married clergy, and it could allow female ordination.  Most probably it will not, especially the latter, because of the tradition: but it has nothing to do with suddenly changing any infallible proclamation.

See my earlier link to possible female priests and even bishops in the early Church.

Wiki lists the following ex Cathedra Papal statements:

"Tome to Flavian", Pope Leo I, 449, on the two natures in Christ, received by the Council of Chalcedon;
Letter of Pope Agatho, 680, on the two wills of Christ, received by the Third Council of Constantinople;
Benedictus Deus, Pope Benedict XII, 1336, on the beatific vision of the just prior to final judgment;
Cum occasione, Pope Innocent X, 1653, condemning five propositions of Jansen as heretical;
Auctorem fidei, Pope Pius VI, 1794, condemning seven Jansenist propositions of the Synod of Pistoia as heretical;
Ineffabilis Deus, Pope Pius IX, 1854, defining the immaculate conception; and
Munificentissimus Deus, Pope Pius XII, 1950, defining the assumption of Mary. \

But again, restricting ordination to men is an infallible teaching by the ordinary and universal magisterium, not by the Pope.  Papal infallibilty is a recent Dogma, the infallibilty of the ordinary and universal magisterium is not.  It is if anything, a much stronger ruling than an ex cathedra statement by a Pope.

[Cato]

You can investigate all you want, but according to its own doctrine, the Church cannot error on proclaimations of faith and morals.  It is more than whether a particular Papal statement was ex Cathedra.   The entire Church for its recorded history has held that priests have to be men.  It is an infallible matter of doctrine that a Woman cannot validly consecrate the host at Mass. 

No, it is not.

And concerning Wikipedia's statements about the number of "infallible" statements, the number is highly debatable.  My theologians taught that only the 1950 Immaculate Conception decree was fallible, since it occurred after Vatican I's promulgation of the idea in the 1870's.  To be sure, this was an official sanctioning of something traditionally present.

This is not the place to detail the rather excruciating cogitations involved in determining whether something is an "infallible doctrine" or not.  Infallibility is relevant specifically only about "faith and morals" and one can debate whether a female clergy is a matter of faith or simply a liturgical tradition, which could be changed.

E.g. here is an excerpt from an essay by Jesuit theologian Peter Burns
about whether conciliar pronouncements on this topic have an "infallible" force, since no papal ex cathedra statement has ever been made:

(CDF = Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, one of the Vatican's committees)

Now, the next question we must ask: is the CDF's opinion about the infallible status of the doctrine itself infallible? The answer is definitely NO. Why? Because NOTHING the CDF says is EVER infallibly said. The CDF is not the pope speaking ex cathedra, nor is it a valid ecumenical council, nor is it the College of Bishops in union with the pope. The only way a doctrine can be infallibly taught is by one of the 3 modes of infallible teaching I described above. The CDF can give an opinion about if or when a teaching has been infallibly taught, but ITS OPINION IS ITSELF ALWAYS FALLIBLE. THE CDF IS NOT ENDOWED WITH INFALLIBILITY. Of course, the CDF can state a doctrine which has been infallibly taught. But so can anyone. If I simply repeated an infallibly defined doctrine, such as the Assumption, I would say something which has been infallibly taught. I would be uttering an infallible truth. But I would not be infallible then or ever. Same with the CDF. Its opinion on this as on any other matter is fallible.

So what we have is:


No ex cathedra infallible papal teaching about women's ordination;

No infallibly defined dogma of an ecumenical council concerning women's ordination;

A fallible opinion to the effect that the ban on women's ordination has been infallibly taught by the ordinary and universal magisterium of the Church.

Now just because an opinion is fallible doesn't mean that it's false. The CDF spoke fallibly, but did it speak nonetheless truly?
My opinion is that it made a mistake. It is, in my opinion (no less fallible than the CDF's), simply not the case that the College of Bishops in union with the pope have constantly taught as a moral whole that the longstanding canonical ban on women's ordination is of divine institution or belongs to the divinely revealed deposit of faith, and must be definitively held as such by all the faithful.  

(My emphasis above)

Also on women or girls being ancillaries at liturgies:

And Pope Gelasius I got it WRONG when he held that female altar servers and other females employed in liturgical functions were acting in contempt of "divine truths." (Either Gelasius got it wrong, or else John Paul II has by allowing female altar servers, etc.). So these are hardly safe sources on this matter, and in any case hardly constitute the College of Bishops as a moral whole.

The practice of Jesus: nowhere does Scripture state that Jesus forbade women's ordination. True, the Twelve were all male, but they were also all Jews. Did the Church err by ordaining gentiles? Obviously not. But why should we think that Jesus's choice of only males for the Twelve WAS theologically significant, whereas his choice of only Jews was not? He could have chosen gentiles as he had contact with gentiles (among the Roman forces of occupation for example). But he didn't.

To be sure, Burns seems to be in favor of the idea of women's ordination, but his explanations about whether this is a matter of infallible faith doctrine seem on target.

See: http://astro.temple.edu/~arcc/burns.htm

Part of the problem is that the whole issue did not exist until the last 40 years: Trent, Vatican Councils I and II simply never addressed the issue.  So a conciliar tradition is not really there.

[Lilas Pastia]

Excellent post, Cato.

The very concept of the Councils is a model of debate on matters of doctrine and faith. Some lasted for years. Many ended in the condemnation of heresies. Bringing together the Church's thiniking and governing heads is a very good way to ensure that such decisions are not taken lightly. Qui dit mieux ?

IMO no mainstream church has allowed more debate and discussion within its ranks than the Catholic Church. It has itself erred very badly and earned a condemnation in history books for some of its actions, esp. during the centuries where it allowed the Inquisition to become its bullying watchdog.
It's no more fair to condemn the Catholic Church wholesale and for all ages than it is to condemn the German people for the sins of some of its rulers, or the English, French, Portuguese and Spanish ones for the slave trade and the devastation they brought to their colonies over more than 3 centuries.

[bwv 1080]

No, it is not.

And concerning Wikipedia's statements about the number of "infallible" statements, the number is highly debatable.  My theologians taught that only the 1950 Immaculate Conception decree was fallible, since it occurred after Vatican I's promulgation of the idea in the 1870's.  To be sure, this was an official sanctioning of something traditionally present.

This is not the place to detail the rather excruciating cogitations involved in determining whether something is an "infallible doctrine" or not.  Infallibility is relevant specifically only about "faith and morals" and one can debate whether a female clergy is a matter of faith or simply a liturgical tradition, which could be changed.

I wonder if the he appreciates the irony that the Church is potentially fallible in proclaiming which doctrines are infallible.  He may be right, but again the politics are such that the Church has nothing to gain and too much to loose by ever ordaining women.

[Xenophanes]

I wonder if the he appreciates the irony that the Church is potentially fallible in proclaiming which doctrines are infallible.  He may be right, but again the politics are such that the Church has nothing to gain and too much to loose by ever ordaining women.

No irony, just you persisting in a confusion. We keep telling you that the CDF (that was Ratzinger's congregation) is not "the Church." 

Many of us feel that in the long run, not ordaining women is a suicidal impulse, though it may have short term benefits in a world where women are not recognized as equal to men.  But that is changing.